Well this should get interesting.
http://www.monoandstereo.com/2016/02/vinyl-vs-cd-vinyl-sounds-better.html
http://www.monoandstereo.com/2016/02/vinyl-vs-cd-vinyl-sounds-better.html
Vinyl is Better than CD - with Measurements
- Thread starter beaur
- Start date
Epic fail
There is enough segregation and hurtful crap in the world, really it's best for folks to be happy for one another no matter what system they use or who they love.
Love is in short supply so I for one am happy people finding it anywhere with anyone .
If you love music great, it's a gift to be able to relate to music on a rewarding level and to be able to enjoy it at home.
Generally folks respond better to analogue systems, that's vinyl and tubes. I don't though.
Do I get uptight about people saying I am wrong? No! Do I get overjoyed when people agree with me? No!
I get overjoyed when folks share their enjoyment of music and talk about the systems they have used to realise this joy. I take on board any tips and advice that I don't know already and try and not get too offended when guys tell me things I already know but with the attitude of some one who is very pleased with them selfs, thinking they know so much more than me.
How the music is captured and transferred to the format trumps everything.
There is enough segregation and hurtful crap in the world, really it's best for folks to be happy for one another no matter what system they use or who they love.
Love is in short supply so I for one am happy people finding it anywhere with anyone .
If you love music great, it's a gift to be able to relate to music on a rewarding level and to be able to enjoy it at home.
Generally folks respond better to analogue systems, that's vinyl and tubes. I don't though.
Do I get uptight about people saying I am wrong? No! Do I get overjoyed when people agree with me? No!
I get overjoyed when folks share their enjoyment of music and talk about the systems they have used to realise this joy. I take on board any tips and advice that I don't know already and try and not get too offended when guys tell me things I already know but with the attitude of some one who is very pleased with them selfs, thinking they know so much more than me.
How the music is captured and transferred to the format trumps everything.
Sapz
I get your point but couldn't let this pass:
... For some folks, that is perhaps true but from there to "generally" ... A stretch.
There are plenty of studies to support this
Don't ask me why as like I said I am not one of those general folk
Oh and I will be opening a area for what's best semantics.... And what's best whinges
Should be popular
Shouldn't this be in the "measurement" section of the forum topics?
Why do people continue to "light the fire" of A vs D?
How many more times do folks have to hear the same old arguments?
Shouldn't this be in the "measurement" section of the forum topics?
Why do people continue to "light the fire" of A vs D?
How many more times do folks have to hear the same old arguments?
For the same reasons that people argue their God is the real God. Just listen to music on any format you want and enjoy.
We can put an end to this and all unite as one on this issue now. Let's link our hands together and form a warm circle of happiness while we sing kumbaya. Because it's possible to enjoy the sound of vinyl on digital playback gear these days. So knowing this truth, we all just get along now and focus on the music, rather than the format.
Amazing what some sites will post. The fellow messed up his up and down conversion of the file first of all. Some versions of Izotope lower level by .2 db when doing conversions. Newer versions don't. Whether that is the cause or not I don't know. You can do this conversion yourself and get some low noise around -90 db or so depending on dither used. You'll get the ultrasonics that CD can't do. You won't get what is shown in the graphs.
We also don't know what the input signal was. So now comparing apples to carrier pigeons......
We run sine waves off a test LP and look at the harmonic distortion. Leading to the obvious conclusion when comparing harmonic levels of two different signals on two different mediums with two different references, and having messed up the first part we compare bannanas to ping pong balls to clearly conclude LP is better by more than 6 db.
Maybe there is some loss in translation. This is so mal-conceived as to seem like a parody. Maybe I just didn't catch that it was a joke.
We also don't know what the input signal was. So now comparing apples to carrier pigeons......
We run sine waves off a test LP and look at the harmonic distortion. Leading to the obvious conclusion when comparing harmonic levels of two different signals on two different mediums with two different references, and having messed up the first part we compare bannanas to ping pong balls to clearly conclude LP is better by more than 6 db.
Maybe there is some loss in translation. This is so mal-conceived as to seem like a parody. Maybe I just didn't catch that it was a joke.
I didn't think so. But I think I might finally get into vinyl now that I know about it.
Shouldn't this be in the "measurement" section of the forum topics?
Why do people continue to "light the fire" of A vs D?
How many more times do folks have to hear the same old arguments?
It should be in the measurement section, where it would rapidly be de-constructed.
Tim
Just because some of the classic rock albums I like haven't been mastered to quad DSD from the original master tapes yet using the latest SOTA ADC's and digital work stations. So with a killer rig like Bruce has, the vinyl version likely will sound better than some of the redbook versions mastered in the 80's and 90's on early gen inferior digital gear.
And using Bruce's service will save me the $100000 plus that it would take to buy a vinyl rig like Bruce's in order to enjoy the exact same sound in my living room.
Was it ever really constructed?
I'm a sound engineer and physicist........Blah, blah, blah.......measurements and stuff......blah, blah......vinyl is better.
Sorry, I may be missing something, but from your post I cannot extract an explanation for the difference in the graphs. I also suspect a massive screw-up here, but I'd like to know the exact nature thereof. Thanks.
Okay, best I can tell, the guy took music in a 96/24 format. Converted it to 44/16 and then back to 96/24. He then subtracted the converted result from the original 96/24 file to see what differences were left. To determine what distortion was in 44/16 compared to the original. The differences he shows as an FFT are not what would result. They might be right if your conversion software alters volume levels (which a good many do) by a fraction of a db. So an FFT of such a difference isn't any distortion it is simply a mistake in procedure. Such an exercise done properly will show nothing below 20 khz except very low level noise from dithering done during the conversions. Plus high frequency info in the original that was filtered out when it was a 44 khz file. So a fail for step one.
He then uses, best I understand him, this FFT info to create a graph of distortion by frequency for CD. Of course that isn't what it is for one thing. It isn't comparable to an FFT of a totally different signal either.
He then does a conventional harmonic distortion measure of sine wave on an LP. Creates a graph of distortion for that which he compares to a graph of distortion for CD while the CD chart isn't really a distortion graph in the first place.
Yet his descriptions and graphs really look to be garbled or missing info about what he did or what they represent. Regardless of any of that, his first step of 96 to 44 and back to 96 conversion appears to be botched which invalidates everything thereafter.
Similar threads
